It's ok, 'muricans have a very negative vision of socialism, which they kind of confuse with comunism. Real socialism is really just an economy controlled by the government mainly in benefit of those of the lower class, it's objective is not the equality of all but a much fairer enviroment by providing resources, not like direct money but education, health and so on to those who can't afford it.

The problem people have with socialism is a) it uses the capital of those on the higher classes to afford itself / b) politicians **** things up by being corrupt and only focusing gov spending on the sectors who vote for them.

If the man who has 99 cows acquired them through a voluntary exchange of goods and services, then yes, he deserves them. Are you saying it is unfair for people to have what they have rightfully earned?

The problem with your argument is you don't specify HOW that one man in your hypothetical scenario has gotten the 99 cows. If he acquired them through FORCE, that's not libertarianism or capitalism. And also, you might want to avoid straw man arguments like "one man has 99% of the wealth while the rest of the people have 1% of the wealth."

Even if the obtained the cows through rightful means, no one person should have 99% of the cows while the rest have one cow. Because it means no matter how hard the other people work, 99% of the cows already belong to one person, and there is a limited amount of cows in the world, so the rest are ******.

Well now we do not have an understanding of your principles. My principles dictate that I do not condone stealing in any form. If you believe any form of theft is justified, then you must believe all forms of theft are justified, otherwise your principles are inconsistent. Theft is theft. Twist it however you want.

I agree, it's mostly a childish fantasy that libertarianism can provide a fair environment for everyone to succeed. If a child is born into poverty they neither have the education required to get ahead or potentially the health to get ahead if they cant afford good care. And if they can't afford enough food, they obviously wouldn't be able to concentrate in whatever sub-par school they go to anyway. That part is just basic biology. To think that it's fair to subject kids to that and then the whole time claim if they worked hard it was possible while a select few get to work nothing in their life sitting upon millions of dollars represents a very, very twisted and fairly disgusting world view. Is stealing wrong in most cases? Of course. Could it be justified if it meant providing equal opportunity to those who are suffering? I believe so. And if you make 10 million dollars and are pissed off because you're forced to pay 5 million back to society then you're just a petty, greedy asshole. Nobody deserves to live in extreme luxury like that.

That isn't true at all. Blanket statements like that are never accurate. Theft for personal or selfish reasons, or to fuel drug habits are of course bad, and i don't condone that at all. Theft from someone who doesn't need to quantity of resources that they have, and can still have a comfortable living without some of those resources, and then giving those resources to help people who work just as hard but have gotten a bad break while is still theft, is being done for a moral and justifiable reason.